Table of Contents. Executive Summary. 1.0 Background and Scope of Work. 2.0 Project Definition. 3.0 Traffic Summary. 4.0 Structural Systems

Transcription

1

2 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 Table of Contents E Executive ummary 1.0 Background and cope of Work 2.0 Project Definition 3.0 Traffic ummary 4.0 tructural ystems 5.0 Proposed chedule 6.0 Project Costs 7.0 Next teps 8.0 Appendices

3 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 E Executive ummary 1.0 Background and cope of Work The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is committed to improving the commuter rail station located in alem, Massachusetts. The station is among the busiest in the system and has limited visibility and accessibility from the city. Additionally, there currently exists a lack of sufficient parking at the alem Commuter Rail tation, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) wishes to proceed with plans to increase parking at this site. The MBTA is currently proposing a parking facility that will provide approximately 800 spaces on the MBTA site, an increase of +/- 460 spaces over the existing 344 spaces. Modes of transportation on the site need to be considered: pedestrians, bicycles, cars, buses, and trains. The design intent is to sufficiently separate the different modes of transportation so that each mode will function safely and properly with minimal interference. cope adjustments are being driven by budget and funding. The vehicular and pedestrian bridge connection from Washington treet is no longer part of the base project. The parking count has been reduced to approximately 800 spaces surface and structured. One deck has also been eliminated from the parking structure. Bus bays have been removed from within garage footprint. The height of the first floor of garage has been reduced. 2.0 Project Definition The MBTA, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and City of alem is devoted to transforming the station area into a alem downtown gateway that will contribute to area revitalization. Features included as part of this concept design are: full-high platform suitable for 9-car trains, platform canopy connected to buses, waiting room, pedal and park bicycle storage, and new accessible ramp from Washington treet intersection to the platform level. Track adjustments are not anticipated as part of the scope. Access from Washington treet will be via existing stairs with a new uncovered accessible ramp. The parking facility is anticipated to serve patrons of the MBTA commuter rail as well as employees and users of the adjacent court complex. As currently proposed, the 5-level parking structure will provide approximately 800 spaces with an average of +/- 335 F per space. A newly designed kiss and ride and taxicab drop off/pick up curb will be located near the train platform. A site plan, garage deck plans, sections and concept renderings are provided in ection Traffic ummary In 2008, the alem Commuter Rail tation served the third highest number of Boston-bound passengers in the MBTA s commuter rail system with 2,500 daily boardings. The project site currently contains a surface parking lot with +/- 344 spaces for commuter rail passengers. The proposed parking garage will replace the MBTA parking lot and have +/- 800 parking spaces on five levels. Adjacent to the site, the City operates a parking lot with 123 surface spaces, providing all-day parking. The City parking lot will not be affected by the proposed MBTA parking garage and will continue to operate independent from the commuter rail lot. The commuter rail station also serves as a bus stop for nine MBTA bus routes. Bus routings or stops will not be affected by the proposed parking garage. Pedestrian access and amenities will be improved and bicycle parking capacity will be increased. The current site configuration is classified as level of service (LO) F; with the traffic generated by the parking garage; traffic exiting the MBTA site is expected to continue to experience LO F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Please see additional field traffic counts completed in eptember 2010 in ection 3.0 Traffic ummary. The current site access/egress is unsignalized; long-term plans for the Bridge treet corridor call for future improvements including signalization at this intersection. While the Bridge treet/site driveway remains unsignalized, the LO applies to traffic exiting the project site. Bridge treet traffic would continue to operate freely through the intersection. 4.0 tructural ystems MBTA parking standards incorporate an 8-6 by 18 parking stall geometry with a 24 drive-aisle for 90 degree parking. The parking facility is currently designed with a two-way driving pattern and a 90-degree parking stall. The module width is the required 60 feet and the vehicle spacing will meet or exceed the MBTA requirements. During the development of design concepts, the design team analyzed various options for structural systems with respect to the project criteria. There are multiple variations/combinations of structural systems in use for the construction of parking structures utilizing post-tensioned concrete, pre-tensioned concrete, conventionally reinforced concrete and structural steel sections. Upon review it is Walker s opinion that the all pretensioned precast concrete system is the appropriate choice for the alem MBTA project when the four main project criteria of functional design, cost, aesthetics and durability are considered and weighted. 5.0 Proposed chedule The project schedule is being developed with the MBTA. Items to be addressed include Construction Procurement Methodology (e.g., Ch149A CMAR), Construction Phasing Alternatives, and Environmental Permitting. At this time, environmental permitting appears to be the critical path with respect to design. The draft schedule indicates a duration of approximately 11 months for environmental permitting. Assuming that this effort is initiated in January 2011, construction could commence in November/December Project Costs Construction cost estimates identify and quantify costs associated with garage and with other elements of the improvements. With the scope adjustments identified in this report, the order of magnitude of construction costs indicated is +/- $24.9 million. The Daedalus Projects construction estimate is provided in the appendix. Of this, approximately $18.0 million is associated with the construction of the garage structure. The balance of the construction costs is associated with station improvements, site access, and related amenities. A project budget will be developed based on the construction cost estimate with a total budget target of $30 million. Accordingly, value engineering and cost management will continue to be critical to meeting the budget target. 7.0 Next teps In addition to development & documentation of the design, next steps include: Environmental Permitting Geotechnical Evaluation Traffic Analysis (field counts) Construction Phasing / Implementation Construction Procurement Methodology Coordination with future development of rail line row. Page E-1

4 Final cope Report October 20, Appendices cope Adjustment ummary, dated eptember 10, 2010 revised Parking Garage alem, MA: Conceptual Design Estimate Dated August 19, 2010 alem MBTA Parking Garage alem, MA: Conceptual Design Estimate Dated August 19, 2010 Annual Maintenance Cost New Facility (Design Development Level ervice Life Cost tudy), dated eptember 3, Page E-2

5 Final cope Report October 20, Background & cope of Work 1.1 Introduction The alem commuter rail station is located on the edge of the historic downtown of alem, on the Newburyport/Rockport Line, just south of the turnout at the Beverly tation. The station is located at the end of Washington treet north of Bridge treet and across from the courthouse complex. The grade elevation of the existing MBTA parcel is approximately eighteen feet below the elevation of Bridge treet. The parcel adjacent to the site is owned by the City of alem and used as surface parking. The MBTA parcel currently provides 344 parking spaces and the City of alem parcel provides 123 surface parking spaces. Additionally the triangular site is bounded on two sides by tracks owned by the Guilford Corporation. To the North, the Guilford tracks are active and mostly used as layover space. The right-of-way adjacent to the south penetrates the site and physically separates the City lot from the MBTA property. Access to the site has one primary vehicular entrance/exit and several pedestrian paths, formal and informal. The vehicular entrance is located at the south of the site off of Bridge treet. Pedestrian access points are primarily to the south and the west of the site. The MBTA commuter rail tracks are located to the east of the site. The tracks are accessed from a platform with a mini-high platform at the far end of the station. The site is also home to a watch tower constructed in The tower is not part of the proposed project and will remain intact. 1.2 cope of Work cope of work includes analysis of adjustment to previous designs to accommodate approximately 800 cars on the site. Improvements to site amenities, station amenities, and garage program include: Provide design for a full-high platform without track adjustments. Provide platform canopies and enclosed (heated and cooled) waiting area. Provide pedestrian access from Washington treet via existing stairs with a new accessible ramp. Provide pedal and park bicycle storage adjacent to the waiting area and platform. Provide design for 5-level parking facility with single point of entry and exit and integrated alem station program. The state has established a working project budget of $30.0 million and this cope Adjustment Report describes project elements for the site, station, and garage that may be anticipated within such a project budget. Additional scope items beyond the current project budget could include: Provide an area for a +/-2,000sf Registry Express adjacent to the waiting area, proximate to site access from Washington treet. Provision of (2) toilet rooms. Extended platform canopies. Additional brick exterior. Future pedestrian and vehicular bridge connections from Washington treet. 1.3 Project Goals The MBTA, City of alem, and other stakeholders have identified the following project goals: Increase the number of parking spaces on the site from +/- 344 to approximately 800 spaces Minimize traffic impacts to surrounding streets and neighborhoods Improve handicapped access (pedestrian and vehicular parking) Improve access to new full-high train platform Improve site amenities (canopy, enclosed waiting area, and communication systems) Increase site security via good visibility and lighting Minimize scale and visual impact of proposed garage Design garage to respect the architectural context of alem In addition to the functional requirements of the project, the design team will also take into account that the alem station serves as a point of entry to the City of alem. The design is intended to allow visitors to orient themselves when arriving at alem. Page 1-1

6 Final cope Report October 20, Project Definition The MBTA, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and City of alem is devoted to transforming the station area into a alem downtown gateway that will contribute to area revitalization. 2.1 ite Amenities ite amenities include: +/- 2,000 F enclosed (heated and cooled) waiting area (including stairs and elevator core) Canopy system linking the waiting area, garage, bus lanes, and platform Access from Washington treet via existing stairs with a new uncovered accessible ramp Pedal and park bicycle storage 2.2 tation Improvements tation improvements include: Current plans for station improvements include an accessible full-high platform Track adjustments are not part of project scope 2.3 Garage Program Garage program includes: anticipated peak level activity associated with morning and afternoon commuting patterns. 2.4 cope Adjustments To address the project budget, scope items have been adjusted from earlier designs including: Direct vehicular connection to Washington treet has been removed from the project scope Garage structure has been consolidated to 5 levels Bus traffic no longer resides within the garage footprint Clear height of the first deck (level 2) has been lowered Expansion of the upper decks over the access drive Limited use of brick toward the platform and Washington treet. Additional scope items could include: Future pedestrian and vehicular connection to Washington treet. +/- 2,000 F Registry Express Toilet rooms Extended platform canopies to North Additional brick exterior +/- 800 spaces with an average of +/-335 F per space (these numbers will be marginally adjusted as the design is advanced) HOV, plug-in, car-share, and accessible spaces have been designated close to vertical circulation ingle point of entry and exit from the site. Functional details remain to be developed but it is anticipated that entry and exit lanes will be flexible to accommodate Page 2-1

7

8 X 0 48 X 96 X X X X X 168 X 192 X 204 X 240 X 288 X Y CANOPY ABOVE CANOPY ABOVE 140 Y 156'-0" DN UP 59'-6" 26'-7" 80 Y WAITING AREA 2,000 F Y 20 37'-0" ALEM MBTA PARKING GARAGE - COPE ADJUTMENT - LEVEL 1: 1/32" = 1'-0" - OCTOBER 20, 2010

9 X 0 48 X 96 X X X X X 168 X 192 X 204 X 240 X 288 X 335 Y 200 Y 140 LINE OF ROOF BELOW UP DN LINE OF CANOPY BELOW 80 Y 20 Y ALEM MBTA PARKING GARAGE - COPE ADJUTMENT - LEVEL 2: 1/32" = 1'-0" - OCTOBER 20, 2010

10 X 0 48 X 96 X X X X X 168 X 192 X 204 X 240 X 288 X 335 Y 200 Y 140 UP DN 80 Y 20 Y ALEM MBTA PARKING GARAGE - COPE ADJUTMENT - LEVEL 3-4: 1/32" = 1'-0" - OCTOBER 20, 2010

11 X 0 48 X 96 X X X X X 168 X 192 X 204 X 240 X 288 X 335 Y 200 TAIR ROOF Y 140 DN 80 Y 20 Y TAIR ROOF TAIR ROOF ALEM MBTA PARKING GARAGE - COPE ADJUTMENT - LEVEL 5: 1/32" = 1'-0" - OCTOBER 20, 2010

12

13

14

15

16 Final cope Report October 20, Traffic ummary 3.1 ummary This report presents the traffic and parking impacts associated with the proposed new parking garage at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority s (MBTA) alem Commuter Rail tation in alem, Massachusetts. Below is a summary of project site characteristics and major findings from the analysis: In 2008, the alem commuter rail station served the third highest number of Boston-bound passengers in the MBTA s commuter rail system, with 2,500 daily boardings and 2010 show that while the overall volumes have decreased by about 7%, the distribution pattern at the MBTA Driveway has changed, with more vehicles arriving and departing via the western leg of Bridge treet and fewer via the eastern leg. This change is directly due to the ramp reconfiguration at North treet. Under Build conditions, with the increased traffic generated by the parking garage, traffic exiting the MBTA Driveway will continue to experience LO F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. It should be noted that if the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway remains unsignalized, the poor level of service and delays only affect traffic exiting the Project site and the left turn from eastbound Bridge treet into the site. Through traffic on Bridge treet would continue to operate freely through the intersection. The Project site currently contains a surface parking lot with 340 spaces for commuter rail passengers. The proposed parking garage will replace the MBTA parking lot and have 801 parking spaces on 5 levels, with approximately 650 spaces designated to commuter rail passengers and approximately 150 spaces designated for parkers associated with the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center, located on nearby Bridge treet. The Bridge treet/mbta Driveway intersection was analyzed with a traffic signal independent of the adjacent signalized intersections of Bridge treet/washington treet (to the east) and Bridge treet/north treet ramps (to the west). In reality, traffic progression between these closelyspaced intersections is exceedingly important in order to prevent queues from backing up from one intersection into the other. The commuter rail station also serves as a bus stop for 9 MBTA bus routes. Bus routings or stops will not be affected by the proposed parking garage. Adjacent to the site, the City owns and operates a parking lot with 123 surface spaces, providing all-day parking. The City lot is separate from the MBTA Project site and any future redevelopment of the City lot will occur independent of the new MBTA garage. In the shortterm, it is anticipated that the City parking lot will continue to operate as it does today. Installation of a traffic signal at the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway would reduce delays and queues for vehicles exiting the MBTA Driveway, but would also cause Bridge treet traffic to stop for a red signal. With a signal, the overall intersection would operate at LO E during the a.m. peak hour and LO D during the p.m. peak. A traffic signal at the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway would allow for controlled pedestrian crossings from the Ruane Judicial Center, across Bridge treet, and into the project site. Vehicle access to the new parking garage (and City lot) will continue to be via the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway intersection. A newly designed kiss-and-ride and taxicab drop-off/pick-up curb will be located near the train platform. Pedestrian access and amenities will be improved and bicycle parking capacity will be increased. The possibility of a traffic signal at the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway must be assessed relative to the Bridge treet arterial and the nearby traffic signals at the North treet ramps and Washington treet. The project team will continue to coordinate with MassDOT on the Bridge treet reconstruction project, which will widen Bridge treet from 2 lanes to 4 lanes between Flint treet and the North treet interchange ramps. Construction is slated to begin in The only site driveway to the MBTA parking lot, commuter rail station, and City parking lot is located at the unsignalized intersection of Bridge treet/mbta Driveway. Based on 2010 traffic counts, drivers exiting the MBTA Driveway currently experience level of service (LO) F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In eptember 2010, the peak hours of traffic at the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway intersection were 7:15 a.m. 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m., corresponding to the peak times of commuter arrivals and departures, respectively, at the station. In 2008, as part of the Ruane Judicial Center project, the roadways ramps in the southeast quadrant of the North treet/bridge treet interchange were removed and the ramps in the southwest quadrant were reconfigured to accommodate the displaced traffic movements. A comparison of peak-hour traffic counts at the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway intersection taken in Page 3-1

17 Final cope Report October 20, Introduction This report describes traffic conditions related to the proposed new parking garage at the MBTA s alem Commuter Rail tation in alem, Massachusetts, including discussion of the following: Existing roadway and traffic conditions; Changes in parking activity due to the increased parking capacity; and Analysis of the parking garage s impact on traffic operations. Project Description tudy Area The Project site currently contains a surface parking lot with 340 spaces for commuter rail passengers and serves as a bus stop for 9 MBTA bus routes. All vehicles enter and exit the Project site via the unsignalized intersection of Bridge treet/mbta Driveway. As shown in the site plan in Error! Reference source not found., the existing lot will be replaced with a 5-level garage containing 801 parking spaces. Approximately 650 spaces will be designated as commuter rail passenger parking and approximately 150 spaces designated for parkers associated with the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center, located on nearby Bridge treet. In total, the new garage will provide an additional 310 on-site parking spaces for commuter rail riders. It is anticipated that the increased parking capacity will be used by current rail passengers who are unable to find parking at the existing site. As shown in Error! Reference source not found. an at-grade taxi lane and kiss-and-ride dropoff/pick-up area will be provided near the train platform. Bus routes will continue to have designated stops along the bus-only curb. Adjacent to the site, the City operates a parking lot with 123 surface spaces, providing all-day parking. The City parking lot will continue to operate independently of the MBTA parking garage and not be affected by the proposed parking garage. This intersection of Bridge treet/mbta Driveway will continue to serve as the Project site s sole access/egress driveway when the new garage is complete. As shown in Error! Reference source not found., the Project site is bounded by the MBTA commuter rail tracks on the east, the City parking lot and active railroad tracks to the south, the North River to the north and elevated Route 114/North treet to the west. Across Bridge treet to the south is the newly constructed J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center to be opened in This report presents traffic impacts at the intersection of Bridge treet/mbta Driveway. Page 3-2

18 Final cope Report October 20, Existing Conditions Existing ite The Project site is located on Bridge treet, which runs roughly parallel to the North River and connects the City of Beverly from the north to the City of alem. To the northeast of the site, Bridge treet intersects with the newly constructed Bridge treet Bypass. The Bridge treet Bypass is separated from the local street network and allows motorists coming to and from the Essex Bridge (which carries Route 1A between alem and Beverly) direct access from Route 1A to the Project site. Bridge treet is classified by MassDOT as an urban arterial west of Washington treet and as a primary arterial east of Washington treet. Vehicular access to the Project site is only at 1 location, via the intersection of Bridge treet/mbta Driveway. Vehicles arriving from North treet (Route 114) or Washington treet need to turn onto Bridge treet to reach the MBTA Driveway. Bridge treet runs underneath the North treet viaduct and the intersection of Bridge treet/mbta Driveway is located underneath the North treet Northbound Ramp overpass, limiting visibility at the intersection itself. After accessing the Project site via the MBTA Driveway, vehicles may continue on the Driveway or turn right onto a secondary roadway which allows access to the MBTA Parking Lot and a municipal parking lot owned by the City of alem. Buses proceed into a bus-only zone. Existing Roadway and Intersection Conditions The Project site driveway at Bridge treet/mbta Driveway is the sole intersection evaluated in this report. Bridge treet runs east-west underneath the North treet viaduct and the intersection with the MBTA Driveway is located immediately east of the viaduct. While this unsignalized intersection does not have any stop control, the MBTA Driveway traffic stops and waits for an acceptable gap in Bridge treet traffic. The westbound Bridge treet approach has 1 travel lane for through traffic and, because Bridge treet widens at the MBTA Driveway, a short (about 50-foot) unmarked rightturn lane for traffic turning into the Project site. Eastbound Bridge treet runs under the North treet viaduct and has 1 through travel lane and 1 left-turn bay for traffic turning into the MBTA Driveway. While the southbound MBTA Driveway approach has one marked travel lane for left and right turns onto Bridge treet, it flares at Bridge treet allowing 1 or 2 right-turning vehicles to proceed while left-turning traffic is queued. Parking is prohibited on both sides of this section of Bridge treet and along the MBTA Driveway. Existing Traffic Volumes Intersection counts at Bridge treet/mbta Driveway were collected on eptember 14, Two automatic traffic recorders collected data on Bridge treet on eptember 14, 2010 and on the MBTA driveway between eptember 21 24, Traffic flow peaked at this intersection during the morning (7:15 a.m. 8:15 a.m.) and evening (5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.) roughly corresponding with the arrival of commuters taking morning trains to Boston and the departure of commuters returning to alem on evening trains. Activity was limited during the midday peak period as most parkers are still at work and the facility has filled by 8:00 a.m. Intersections volumes are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, respectively. An automatic traffic recorder (ATR) is a device that continuously records the passage and speed of vehicles on a roadway for a given period of time. The average daily volume along Bridge treet is approximately 21,500 vehicles per day. The existing 2-way hourly volumes on Bridge treet are shown graphically in Figure 4. Traffic on Bridge treet peaks at about 2,000 vehicles during the morning peak hour and decreases steadily to about 1,200 vehicles per hour between 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. After 1:00 p.m. volumes rise to about 1,600 vehicles due to after school and commuter activity. From 6:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m., volumes steadily decrease from 1,400 to 200 vehicles per hour. The existing average daily volume along the MBTA Driveway is about 3,100 vehicles per day. The 2-way hourly volumes on MBTA Driveway are shown graphically in Figure 5. Traffic volumes on the Driveway are the highest, at about 500 vehicles per hour during the morning peak hour. Volumes remain steady at about 50 vehicles per hour between 9:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. until outbound commuter trains arrive from Boston and volumes peak at about 400 vehicles per hour at 5:00 p.m. and steadily decline thereafter. Intersection Operations The criterion for evaluating traffic operations is level of service (LO), which is determined by assessing average delay incurred by vehicles at intersections and along intersection approaches. The study team calculated average delay and associated LO at study area intersections using Trafficware s ynchro 6 software, which also evaluates the impact on traffic operations from closely spaced intersections. This software is based on the traffic operational analysis methodology of the Transportation Research Board s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Level of service and delay (in seconds) are determined based on intersection geometry and available traffic data for each intersection. Table 1 summarizes the delay and LO thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as defined in the HCM. LO A defines the most favorable condition, with minimum traffic delay. LO F represents the worst condition (unacceptable), with significant traffic delay. The threshold at LO E/LO F indicates that the intersection, or intersection approach, is theoretically at capacity. LO D is generally considered acceptable in an urban environment, such as the study area near the alem Commuter Rail tation, and below theoretical operating capacity. Table 1. Intersection Level of ervice Criteria Average topped Delay (sec/veh.) Level of ervice ignalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A B >10 and 20 >10 and 15 C >20 and 35 >15 and 25 D >35 and 55 >25 and 35 E >55 and 80 >35 and 50 F > 80 > 50 Page 3-3

19 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 The existing Level of ervice results for the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, respectively. The eastbound left turn from Bridge treet into the MBTA Driveway operates at LO C in the a.m. peak hour and LO B in the p.m. peak hour. During the a.m. peak hour, the 95 th percentile queue for the eastbound left turn is about three to four vehicles (68 feet). The associated left-turn bay has storage capacity of about 80 feet and is, therefore, adequate for the existing demand. Traffic exiting the MBTA Driveway experiences LO F during each peak hour with long delays and queues. Results are not reported for Bridge treet traffic because it flows through the intersection without stopping. While delays, volume to capacity (v/c) ratios, and 95 th percentile queue lengths are reported in Table 2 and Table 3, it should be noted that once LO F is reached, the associated measures lose sensitivity and indicate only that congested conditions exist. As such, the associated delays, v/c ratios and queue lengths should not be strictly interpreted. Although the exiting MBTA Driveway volumes are lower in the morning than in the afternoon, the conflicting volumes on Bridge treet are higher in the morning, causing longer delays for MBTA Driveway exiting traffic. Table 2. Existing Conditions (2010) Level of ervice, a.m. peak hour Intersection LO Delay (seconds) V/C Ratio 95 th percentile queue (feet) Unsignalized Intersections Bridge treet/mbta Driveway Bridge treet EB left C MBTA Driveway B left/right F 1) NA 4.67 NA Table 3. Existing Conditions (2010) Level of ervice, p.m. peak hour Intersection LO Delay (seconds) V/C Ratio 95 th percentile queue (feet) Unsignalized Intersections Bridge treet/mbta Driveway Bridge treet EB left B MBTA Driveway B F 1) left/right 1. When LO F is reached, the associated measures lose sensitivity and indicate only that congested conditions exist. As such, the delays, v/c ratios and queue lengths associated with LO F should not be strictly interpreted. Between 4:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m., as trains arrive from Boston and parkers exit the lots, the queue along the MBTA Driveway can grow to 25 vehicles as drivers wait to turn onto Bridge treet. After 5 10 minutes, this queue eventually dissipates. During this 2-hour period, there are 8 outbound trains from Boston stopping at alem, generally arriving every 15 minutes. Existing Parking The Project site currently contains a surface parking lot with 340 spaces for commuter rail passengers. Adjacent to the site, the City operates a parking lot with 123 surface spaces, providing all-day parking. While the City lot is used primarily by MBTA commuters, it appears to serve some local employees who park all day. There are 9 designated accessible parking spaces provided: 6 in the area adjacent to the train platform and 3 in the MBTA parcel. The MBTA currently charges $4.00 per day for parking and the City charges $2.00 per day in the adjacent lot. The lower parking fee does cause the City lot to fill up at a faster rate than the MBTA lot, but the fact that all spaces in the City lot are farther from the station platform than those at the MBTA lot seems to temper the fill rate. During weekday observations in eptember 2010, by 8:00 a.m. the City lot was 100% full and the MBTA lot was at 94% capacity. At 3:00 p.m., the City lot remained 100% full and the MBTA lot was 97% full. In the late afternoon, with the arrival of outbound trains from Boston, both parking lots steadily empty from 4:00 p.m. until about 6:30 p.m. When a major sporting event or concert occurs in Boston, some fans park and take the train into Boston. This use generally does not conflict with commuter parking activity, because fans typically arrive late afternoon as commuters are leaving. In addition to the MBTA lot and City lot, there are approximately 75 informal parking spaces located along the northern side of Bridge treet between the North treet ramps and Lynn treet. This narrow strip of land, about 800 feet long, is bounded by Bridge treet to the south and railroad tracks to the north. Because these spaces are free, they fill up at a faster rate than either the MBTA lot or City lot. In eptember 2010, these informal spaces were used by both MBTA commuters and construction workers at the Ruane Judicial Center. A license plate survey was conducted at the MBTA parking lot on eptember 10, 2003 in order to determine the origins of the parked vehicles and the pick-up/drop-off vehicles. This survey found that alem residents account for just under half of all parkers and generate 59% of the pickup/drop-off activity. After alem residents, the parking areas served primarily commuters from the west, particularly Danvers and Peabody, which accounted for 31% of total parking and pickup/drop-off activity. Origins from Beverly accounted for only 2% of parkers, primarily because there are 5 commuter rail stations in Beverly. While this data was collected 7 years ago (2003), the pattern of parker origins has likely not changed significantly. Existing Transit According to the 2009 Ridership and ervice tatistics published by the MBTA (Blue Book), 64 inbound and outbound trains run between Boston and alem tation on weekdays, traveling on 1 of 2 commuter rail lines: Newburyport or Rockport. Trains run about once every 15 minutes during peak times and about once every hour during off-peak times. tations serviced on this commuter rail inbound from alem to North tation are as follows: wampscott, Lynn, River Works, and Chelsea. Trip duration between alem and North tation is minutes. Page 3-4

20 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 The MBTA currently provides 9 bus routes from the site: the 450, 450W, 451, 455, 455W, 456, 459, 465, and 468. Bus access to the site is the same as for other motor vehicles. All buses enter the Project site by turning right from Bridge treet westbound and exit the site by turning right onto Bridge treet westbound. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities There are currently 4 pedestrian access routes to the Project site. A sidewalk under the North treet ramp provides access to the southwest area of the Project site at the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway intersection. There is a staircase to the station from the Bridge treet/washington treet intersection. There is also a handicapped-accessible ramp system to the site west of the Bridge treet/washington treet intersection. An unpaved path connects a private parking lot west of the North treet viaduct to the southwest area of the Project site. Within the Project site, pedestrian access to the train platform is provided from the Washington treet area and the MBTA Driveway. As part of the recent signalization and reconstruction of the Bridge treet/washington treet intersection, there are new crosswalks and pedestrian signals on each roadway approach. Parking for about 35 bicycles is provided by racks in the north section of the site, near the train platform. Passengers are generally permitted to bring bicycles on the MBTA commuter rail in the off-peak direction and during off-peak hours. Bicycles are permitted at all times on weekends. On eptember 14, 2010, 36 bicycles were parked both in the racks and chained to the fence, indicating that bicycle commuting is commonplace at alem tation. Page 3-5

21 Final cope Report October 20, Future Conditions For transportation impact analyses, it is standard practice to evaluate 2 future conditions: a No- Build Condition (without the proposed project) and a Build Condition (if the project is built). Typically, these conditions are projected to a future date 5 years from the Existing Conditions year. For this evaluation of Project site, the Year 2015 was designated as the future year. Based on previous studies, a background growth factor of 1% was applied to develop Year 2015 No-Build volumes. Year 2015 No-Build Conditions The 2014 Future Conditions analysis for both the No-Build and the Build scenarios uses the methodology described in the Existing Conditions analysis. Future No-Build traffic volumes appear in Figure 6 and Figure 7 for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The resulting intersection operations results are shown in Table 3 and Table 4. As under Existing Conditions, the exiting traffic from the MBTA Driveway will operate poorly at LO F under No-Build Conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. The eastbound left turn from Bridge treet would operate at LO C in the a.m. peak hour and LO B during the p.m. peak hour. Table 4. No-Build Conditions (2015) Level of ervice, a.m. peak hour Intersection LO Delay (seconds) V/C Ratio 95 th percentile queue (feet) Unsignalized Bridge treet/mbta Driveway Bridge treet EB left C MBTA Driveway B left/right F 1) NA 5.45 NA Table 5. No-Build Conditions (2015) Level of ervice, p.m. peak hour Intersection LO Delay (seconds) V/C Ratio 95 th percentile queue (feet) Unsignalized Bridge treet/mbta Driveway Bridge treet EB left B MBTA Driveway B left/right F 1) When LO F is reached, the associated measures lose sensitivity and indicate only that congested conditions exist. As such, the delays, v/c ratios and queue lengths associated with LO F should not be strictly interpreted. # 95 th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Year 2015 Build Traffic Conditions For Build Conditions, the traffic activity associated with the new parking garage is added to that under No-Build Conditions. Parking Activity As shown in the site plan in Error! Reference source not found., the existing lot will be replaced with a 5-level garage containing 801 parking spaces. Approximately 650 spaces will be designated to commuter rail passengers and approximately 150 spaces designated for parkers associated with the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center, located on nearby Bridge treet. In total, the new garage will provide an additional 310 on-site parking spaces for commuter rail riders. It is anticipated that the increased parking capacity will be used by current rail passengers who are unable to find parking at the existing site and either choose to park elsewhere or use some other travel mode to the station, such as walking or biking. In 2001, the MBTA conducted a ridership survey of North hore commuters, including passengers at alem tation. The arrival mode share percentages observed in 2001 (average across all stations) were applied to the current alem boardings of 2,500 daily passengers to estimate how current passengers are arriving at the alem tation. Table 6 shows the number of passengers estimated for each of 4 mode share groups (as described in the table) and the associated Project site parking demand for the existing lot and future garage. It is anticipated that the additional parking capacity will be used by passengers who switch from Group 2, Kiss-and-Ride, and from Group 3, those who currently park elsewhere. A reduction in the number of kiss-and-ride passengers reduces the number of daily vehicle trips because pick-up/drop-off activity generates twice as many trips, as compared to on-site parking activity. Providing more parking capacity for passengers who currently park elsewhere does not create new vehicle trips in the study area, but does increase the number of trips arriving at the Project site. Currently, the on-site parking is filled by 8:00 a.m. on a typical weekday. It is possible that with the increased on-site parking capacity, passengers will have the flexibility of arriving later and still being able to secure a space. If this occurs, it is possible that the number of commuters who take trains after 8:00 a.m. would increase. The MBTA will monitor ridership and evaluate the need for train schedule changes. In addition to the 650 spaces reserved for MBTA passengers, 150 spaces will be designated for employees and/or visitors to the Ruane Judicial Center. The peak hours of traffic along Bridge treet and at the MBTA Driveway are 7:15-8:15 a.m. and 5:00-6:00 p.m. The Courthouse will be open 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with specific courts starting at 8:00 or 8:30 a.m. The courts usually end by 4:30 p.m. During the a.m. peak hour, it has been assumed that half of the 150 court reserved spaces will fill up. No court parking activity was included in the p.m. peak hour. Page 3-6

22 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 Table 6. Parking Demand at MBTA alem tation Current Mode hare Group Future Daily Inbound Boardings at tation Percent of Total Number Vehicles Parked at Peak Accumulation Existing MBTA Parking Lot Future MBTA Parking Garage Group 1 Park at MBTA Lot Park at MBTA Garage 16% Group 2 Continue to be dropped Kiss-and-Ride: Dropped off off 9% a.m. and picked up p.m. Park at MBTA Garage 5% Continue to park Group 3 26% elsewhere Park elsewhere Park at MBTA Garage 6% Group 4 Continue to use other Use other mode of arrival mode 38% (walk, bus, bike) Park at MBTA Garage 0% Total 100% 2, Mode share percentages are based on Project site observations and 2001 MBTA North hare Commuter Rail urvey, including an auto occupancy of 1.2 passengers per vehicle. Assumptions applied to current alem tation Boston-bound boardings of 2,500 daily passengers. Traffic Volumes Based on the travel characteristics of the mode share groups presented in Table 6, the associated change in traffic volumes with the new garage was calculated for the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway intersection. Future Build traffic volumes appear in Figure 8 and Figure 9, for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, and the associated intersection level of service are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. With the increased trips generated to the garage in the a.m. peak hour, the eastbound left turn will operate at LO E while exiting traffic continues to operate at LO F. During the pm. peak hour, exiting traffic will increase and continue to experience LO F. The eastbound left turn into the Project site will operate at LO B. As a preliminary step to understanding if signalization may reduce delays for traffic exiting the MBTA site, without causing undo congestion along Bridge treet, the Bridge treet/mbta Driveway intersection was analyzed with signalization. This intersection would operate at overall LO E during the a.m. peak hour and LO D during the p.m. peak hour. Table 7. Future Build Conditions (2015) Level of ervice, a.m. peak hour Intersection LO Delay (seconds) V/C Ratio 95 th percentile queue (feet) Unsignalized Bridge treet/mbta Driveway Bridge treet EB left E MBTA Driveway B left/right F NA 26.1 NA ignalized Bridge treet/mbta Driveway E Bridge treet EB left F #430 Bridge treet EB thru A Bridge treet WB thru/right F #1136 MBTA Driveway B left/right D Table 8. Future Build Conditions (2015) Level of ervice, p.m. peak hour Intersection LO Delay (seconds) V/C Ratio 95 th percentile queue (feet) Unsignalized Bridge treet/mbta Driveway Bridge treet EB left B MBTA Driveway B left/right F 1) NA 3.26 NA ignalized Bridge treet/mbta Driveway D Bridge treet EB left E #71 Bridge treet EB thru B Bridge treet WB thru/right D #745 MBTA Driveway B left/right E # When LO F is reached, the associated measures lose sensitivity and indicate only that congested conditions exist. As such, the delays, v/c ratios and queue lengths associated with LO F should not be strictly interpreted. 2. # 95 th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. For this preliminary analysis, the intersection was considered independent of the signalized intersections of Bridge treet/washington treet (to the east) and Bridge treet/north treet ramps (to the west). In reality, traffic progression between these closely-spaced intersections is Page 3-7

23 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 Bus Routes exceedingly important in order to prevent queues from backing up from one intersection into the other. Evaluating traffic operations and progression at the additional Bridge treet intersections is beyond the scope of this current study but is necessary to understanding how traffic along the Bridge treet corridor will operate. At midday, traffic volumes into and out of the MBTA Driveway are relatively low, about 50 vehicles per hour. Vehicle loop detectors embedded in the MBTA Driveway and the eastbound Bridge treet left-turn bay would be installed to sense vehicles, allowing Bridge treet traffic to flow freely during off-peak periods. As shown in Figure 1, buses serving the Project site will continue to have a bus-only zone and designated bus stops near the station platform. No bus routings will be modified. Pedestrian and Bicycles The current pedestrian access will not change with the proposed facility, but additional amenities will be added to improve accessibility. Pedestrians destined to the trains and buses from the upper Washington treet level will no longer need to use the existing ramp system; instead they can enter the new garage on an upper from the Bridge treet/washington treet intersection and use an elevator to reach the train platform and bus stops. Increased use of bicycles can be encouraged by adding bicycle racks at the platform and providing cover over some or all racks. Page 3-8

24

25 Bridge treet alem MBTA Commuter Rail tation Intermodal Center Project Figure 2. Existing Conditions (2010) Traffic Volumes, a.m. Peak Hour (7:15 8:15 a.m.) North treet MBTA Driveway North treet NB Ramp ITE Bridge treet Washington treet North treet North treet Not to scale. Howard/tein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

26 Bridge treet alem MBTA Commuter Rail tation Intermodal Center Project Figure 3. Existing Conditions (2010) Traffic Volumes, p.m. Peak Hour (5:00 6:00 p.m.) North treet MBTA Driveway North treet NB Ramp ITE Bridge treet Washington treet North treet North treet Not to scale. Howard/tein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

27 alem MBTA Commuter Rail tation Intermodal Center Project Figure 4. Average Daily Traffic by Hour by Direction Bridge treet, East of MBTA Driveway Howard/tein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

28 alem MBTA Commuter Rail tation Intermodal Center Project Figure 5. Average Daily Traffic by Hour by Direction MBTA Driveway, North of Bridge treet Howard/tein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

29 Bridge treet alem MBTA Commuter Rail tation Intermodal Center Project Figure 6. No-Build Conditions (2015) Traffic Volumes, a.m. Peak Hour (7:15 8:15 a.m.) North treet MBTA Driveway North treet NB Ramp ITE Bridge treet Washington treet North treet North treet Not to scale. Howard/tein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

30 Bridge treet alem MBTA Commuter Rail tation Intermodal Center Project Figure 7. No-Build Conditions (2015) Traffic Volumes, p.m. Peak Hour (5:00 6:00 p.m.) North treet MBTA Driveway North treet NB Ramp ITE Bridge treet Washington treet North treet North treet Not to scale. Howard/tein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

31 Bridge treet Washington treet alem MBTA Commuter Rail tation Intermodal Center Project Figure 8. Build Conditions (2015) Traffic Volumes, a.m. Peak Hour (7:15 8:15 a.m.) North treet MBTA Driveway North treet NB Ramp ITE Bridge treet North treet North treet Not to scale. Howard/tein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

32 Bridge treet alem MBTA Commuter Rail tation Intermodal Center Project Figure 9. Build Conditions (2015) Traffic Volumes, p.m. Peak Hour (5:00 6:00 p.m.) North treet MBTA Driveway North treet NB Ramp ITE Bridge treet Washington treet North treet North treet Not to scale. Howard/tein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

33 Final cope Report October 20, tructural ystems Walker Parking Consultants is providing functional planning and structural engineering design services as part of the design team. 4.1 Project Understanding 1. The MBTA will be a long-term owner/operator of new 800 space parking structure. 2. There are a number of stakeholder groups within the City of alem and surrounding communities that are taking great interest in the scale and appearance of the garage structure. These stakeholder groups are also interested in the affect the garage will have on traffic and site access. 3. A specific construction budget has been identified for the new parking facility. ignificant adjustments in scope are proposed by the design team and the MBTA to address project budget constraints. Construction cost control for the project is a significant priority with respect to garage design. 4. The yearly operational costs and longterm maintenance of the facility will be funded separately by the MBTA operating budgets. The MBTA has indicated that maintenance requirements and associated costs are a priority. 5. The displacement of the existing on-site parking during construction of the new facility will be a potential inconvenience to the population using the rail station and residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. The degree and time interval of this facilities construction must be minimized. 6. The existing rail platforms must be kept in service for the duration of the construction process. The basic project parameters advocate a structural system selection process based on project criteria that include: Functional design, Construction cost/sequence ystem aesthetics ystem durability / anticipated maintenance. 4.2 Functional Design The parking facility is anticipated to serve patrons of the MBTA commuter rail as well as employees and users of the adjacent court complex. Parking access and revenue control (parc) equipment will be used to collect fees and control access to the facility. Given that the larger of the patron groups are MBTA patrons, it is anticipated that the system for fee collection may incorporate the Charlie Card system in addition to pay-on-foot collection by cash and major credit card. Vehicular access to the proposed parking facility occurs at one ground level location. There is consideration being given to designing the structure to allow an additional vehicle access point at a supported level for a future direct link to the intersection at Bridge and Washington treets. Internal vehicular circulation is provided by parked on ramps located interior to the footprint of the garage. MBTA parking standards incorporate an 8-6 by 18 parking stall geometry with a 24 drive-aisle for 90 degree parking. The parking facility is currently designed with a two-way driving pattern and a 90-degree parking stall. The module width is the required 60 feet and the vehicle spacing will meet or exceed the MBTA requirements. These parking geometrics are recommended for the following reasons: Given these parking geometrics, the level of service provided by the design module is level of service B- which is recommended due to the large number of transient parkers in the facility. Throughout the parking facility, the geometric standards will comfortably accommodate a 40 percent small car and a 60 percent large car vehicle mix. The 60 module is typical for parking structures using long-span, precast concrete double tees and complies with the current zoning. Based on the above and extensive experience nationwide using similar and tighter modules with large vehicle mixes, we recommend the proposed geometrics as a comfortable design for this application. The stairs and the elevators have been located within the facility for both egress and patron comfort. The main stair/elevator tower has been located in the northeast corner for easy access to the track platform. A second major stair element is located on the southeast corner of the facility to serve as egress and to service the pedestrian paths to the adjacent court complex. A third and secondary stair has been located at the opposite corner of the facility to address emergency egress path requirements. Passive security features will be incorporated in the design. The enhancement of passive security will be achieved by providing proper illumination for the parking facility at all locations. This includes general parking areas, roof level, and stairwells. In addition, lighting will be reviewed for the perimeter of the parking facility and public walks. Openness will be enhanced by minimizing hiding places and by providing glazed stairs and vertical circulation core. Landscaping design and maintenance design are also essential for security. Landscaping should not provide hiding places, and general maintenance helps in the overall appearance of security. Graphics and signage are important to eliminate confusion and delay for patrons. Reduction of delay minimizes the time for incidents. The design will also minimize slip/trip hazards. This can be achieved by reducing the need for curbs as much as possible, and assuring an adequate slip resistant surface. The design will incorporate features that ease maintenance for the parking facility. Three systems for the parking facility require maintenance: operational, structural and aesthetic maintenance. Operational maintenance includes such items as the lighting and electrical system, elevator, and mechanical systems. Design of these systems will incorporate maintenance considerations. tructural maintenance is the most expensive for most parking facilities. Durability review will be performed during later phases of design to determine the appropriate durability features for the project. The facility will also be designed to enhance aesthetic maintenance. This includes areas of landscaping, painting, and general facility appearance. now removal and ice control is an important maintenance consideration. Provisions will be considered for incorporation to allow for ease in a blade and dump scenario for the roof level of the parking facility. 4.3 tructural ystem Options As the project moved forward with the development of the design concepts, the design team has analyzed the various options for structural systems with respect to the project criteria. There are multiple variations/combinations of structural systems in use for the construction of parking structures utilizing post-tensioned concrete, pre-tensioned concrete, conventionally reinforced concrete and structural steel sections. The following is a description and discussion of the predominant systems available for use in the New England area: Cast-in-place Post tensioned Concrete (PT) Post tensioned concrete slab, beam and girders with conventionally reinforced columns Cast-in-place Conventional Reinforced Concrete (RC) Concrete slab (i.e. waffle, flat plate) and columns. Precast Prestressed Concrete (PC) Precast prestressed double tees and Page 4-1

34 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 inverted tee girders supported on conventionally reinforced precast columns, wall panels and spandrels. Hybrid - tructural teel Frame with a concrete deck consisting of one of several systems such as precast double tee beams, post-tensioned concrete slab, or conventionally reinforced concrete slab on metal deck. Each of these systems presents advantages and disadvantages with respect to addressing this project s design criteria. The following provides Walker comment with respect to each system and the project s design criteria for consideration: Cast-in-place Post Tensioned (PT) 1. Functional: a. Utilizes long span construction to allow the framing bay to match the parking module. b. The flat soffit between beams/girders provides for efficient distribution of lights and signage which facilitates vehicular and pedestrian flow within the facility. c. Provides good parking efficiency (F floor area/car). 2. Construction equence/cost: a. Built in place, likely to disrupt all parking at garage site during construction. b. The construction of this system will allow for the uninterrupted use of the platform and tracks. c. Concept level schedule for the construction of the facility is 14 to 18 months exclusive special site considerations. 3. ystem performance/aesthetics: a. Beams spaced at the column lines for minimal obstructions to light distribution. b. Clear headroom from floor to underside of slab, except at beam locations, creates an unobstructed view within deck. c. Concrete cover in structural members can be modified to accommodate a fire rating. d. Edge beams can provide the code required vehicle barriers and be modified for architectural appearance. e. Use of moment frames for lateral stability can reduce and in some cases eliminate the need for interior shear wall elements 4. ystem Durability: a. The PT tendons put compressive forces into the slabs and beams which minimizes need for slab jointing and the occurrence of cracking. b. Main reinforcing tendons encapsulated in protective sleeves to shield them from corrosive elements. c. Limited waterproofing required at congested reinforcing and anchorage locations. Cast-in-place Conventionally Reinforced (RC) 1. Functional: a. Lends itself to short span construction. This requires the placement of columns within the parking module which reduces parking efficiency. 2. Construction equence/cost: a. For durability, it is typically necessary to include a comprehensive waterproofing system and built-in measures (i.e. concrete additives, coatings). This can add significant cost. b. Entire structure is built in place which is likely to disrupt all parking at garage site during construction. c. The construction of this system will allow for the uninterrupted use of the platform and tracks. d. Concept level schedule for the construction of the facility is 14 to 18 months exclusive special site considerations. 3. ystem performance/aesthetics: a. In some cases, flat slab (two way) is utilized which provides for minimal obstructions to light distribution. However, short span requires the placement of columns within the parking module that presents obstruction to light and sight lines. b. Clear headroom from floor to underside of slab. Creates an unobstructed view (between columns) within deck. c. Concrete cover in structural members can be modified to accommodate a fire rating. d. Edge beams can provide the code required vehicle barriers and can be modified for architectural appearance. 4. ystem Durability: a. Cracking in the negative moment regions of the slab requires the installation of membranes and other waterproofing/durability measures to protect reinforcement from chloride laden moisture related deterioration. b. Monolithic construction can be prone to active cracking. This active cracking promotes moisture intrusion of the slab elements and subsequent corrosion of exposed metal items such as reinforcement and form deck. c. Generally requires significant maintenance to repair corrosion induced deterioration and repair worn or failed waterproofing components throughout its service life. Precast Prestressed Concrete (PC) 1. Functional: a. Utilizes long span construction to allow framing bay to match the parking module. b. Provides good parking efficiency. 2. Construction equence/cost: a. Using a repetitive pattern improves cost efficiency. b. Erection may allow some parking to remain in service at different stages of erection. c. The construction of this system will allow for the uninterrupted use of the platform and tracks. d. Concept level schedule for the construction of the facility is 12 to 16 months exclusive special site considerations. 3. ystem performance/aesthetics: a. Double tee floor members have 30 (+/-) deep stems at roughly 6 centers making the ceiling appear lower. b. Way-finding graphics less visible due to tightly spaced tee stems. c. Concrete cover in structural members can modified to accommodate a fire rating. Joints between members may require fire rating. d. Edge beams (spandrels) can provide the code required vehicle barriers and be modified for architectural appearance. 4. ystem Durability: a. Use of non-corrosive embedments reduce staining and corrosion. b. Minimal reinforcing close to the drive surface greatly reduces potential corrosion in slabs. c. ystem requires the installation of sealant around individual PC pieces. Can have literally miles of sealant that require replacement at the end of their service life. Page 4-2

35 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 Hybrid (HYB) 1. Functional: a. This system can utilize both short and long span construction depending on the deck system incorporated into the design. Long span systems allow framing bay to match the parking module. b. Long span system provides good parking efficiency. In cases when short-span system is utilized parking efficiency will decrease similarly to the RC system(s) addressed above. 2. Construction equence/cost: a. Costs can be significantly affected by which slab system is chosen. Refer to options discussed above. b. Erection may allow some parking to remain in service at different stages of erection. c. The construction of this system will allow for the uninterrupted use of the platform and tracks. d. Concept level schedule for the construction of the facility is 12 to 16 months exclusive special site considerations. 3. ystem performance/aesthetics: a. Use of moment frames and bents for lateral stability can reduce and in some cases eliminate the need for interior shear wall elements b. teel superstructure requires separate vehicle guards. c. teel superstructure requires spray-applied fireproofing to attain a fire rating when one is mandated by construction type code requirements. d. Exterior architectural treatment may require additional members. e. Interior aesthetics dependent on chosen floor system. ee above systems for discussion. 4. ystem Durability: a. teel frame must be protected from corrosion, typically by a high performance coating or galvanizing. i. High performance coating will require periodic touchup and re-coating. ii. Galvanizing require periodic touch-up at connections and trouble spots. b. The durability the floor system varies with the selected system and is discussed in the above options. 4.4 tructural ystem Recommendations A number of the systems and their variations can be excluded from further consideration based upon their compatibility with the alem MBTA project parameters and criteria. A brief discussion and justification for these exclusions are as follows: Cast-in-place Post-tensioned Concrete (PT): Of all the systems presented, this system provides the most favorable characteristics in terms of inherent durability. In addition, its ability to span the width of the average parking module means that it meets or exceeds the ability of the other systems with respect to functional design, aesthetic qualities and system performance. It is however historically the more costly of the systems presented to construct in the northeast market and can take longer to erect on site than some of the other systems presented. It should be noted that in terms of life cycle maintenance it is less costly to maintain than the systems that rely more on waterproofing systems (sealants and membranes) to protect the structure from moisture related deterioration. However, the savings in projected service life costs do not offset the increase in capital cost for the alem MBTA project. As a result it is Walker s recommendation that it be eliminated from consideration for use on this project. Cast-in-place Conventional Reinforced Concrete (RC): This system provides less favorable characteristics in terms of inherent durability than the post-tensioned and pre-tensioned slab systems. In addition, the need to install and then maintain waterproofing/barrier systems makes this structural system less cost efficient with respect to initial construction as well as service life cost. Lastly, the short to medium span nature of this system lends itself to structures that support other uses (above) in addition to parking such as plaza construction and occupied building spaces. Walker recommends that this system be eliminated for consideration for use on this project. Hybrid - teel Frame with PT Concrete Deck: This system provides much of the same inherent durability characteristics as the all concrete PT system. Walker s design experience indicates that the use of composite steel beams/girders with a PT slab system has been problematic and led to unintended cracking issues. In addition, its construction cost and duration of erection schedule is on par with that of the all concrete PT system. Lastly, the current architectural façade design direction includes the use of concrete and potentially masonry veneer spandrel/wall sections which are less efficient to accommodate on a steel frame structure than some of the CIP and precast concrete systems under consideration. Walker recommends that this system be eliminated for consideration for use on this project. Hybrid teel Frame with RC/CIP lab (with and without form deck): This system provides less favorable characteristics in terms of inherent durability than the posttensioned and pre-tensioned concrete deck systems. This system can be cost efficient from an initial construction cost standpoint but historically has been shown to perform poorly in the northeast area of the U from a durability standpoint. This can lead to prohibitively high maintenance and repair costs over the service life of the structure. Lastly, the current architectural façade design direction includes the use of concrete and potentially masonry veneer spandrel/wall sections which are less efficient to accommodate on a steel frame structure than some of the CIP and precast concrete systems under consideration. For these reasons it is Walker s recommendation that this group of system(s) be eliminated from consideration for use on this project. Hybrid - teel Frame with pre-tensioned precast concrete deck system: This system provides much of the same inherent durability characteristics as the all concrete pre-tensioned precast system. In addition, its construction cost, projected service life cost and duration of erection schedule is on par with that of the all pretensioned precast system. The use of an exposed steel frame in close proximity to a marine environment presents maintenance concerns that would be less of a consideration than with the all concrete frame systems. Lastly, the current architectural façade design direction includes the use of concrete and potentially masonry veneer spandrel/wall sections which are less efficient to accommodate on a steel frame structure than some of the CIP and precast concrete systems under consideration. Walker recommends that this system be eliminated for consideration for use on this project. Upon review it is Walker s opinion that the all pretensioned precast concrete system is the Page 4-3

36 Final cope Report October 20, 2010 appropriate choice for the alem MBTA project when the four main project criteria of functional design, cost, aesthetics and durability are considered and weighted. pecific attributes of this system that influenced this recommendation include: The all pre-tensioned precast system accommodates the long open spans required for parking efficiency and promotes passive security. The footprint of the proposed alem MBTA project promotes the repetitive use of precast sections. The all pre-tensioned precast system can accommodate the architectural façade treatments currently proposed for the structure in an efficient manner. Historically, the all pre-tensioned precast system is the most cost efficient long span system available in the Northeast. Cost analysis performed for the alem MBTA project indicates it can be accommodated in the project budget. The projected service life costs for all pre-tensioned precast system indicate that it is the most cost efficient system under consideration when net present value (NPV) is compared to the capital and service life costs of other systems. The pre-tensioning of the deck members and the use durability enhancements such as stainless steel embedments and corrosion inhibitor admixtures will provide for a 40 plus year expected service life. Page 4-4

37 Final cope Report October 20, Proposed chedule The project schedule is being developed with the MBTA. Items to be addressed included: Construction Procurement Methodology (e.g., Ch149A CMAR) Construction Phasing Alternatives Environmental Permitting At this time, environmental permitting appears to be the critical path with respect to design. The draft schedule indicates a duration of approximately 11 months for environmental permitting. Assuming that this effort is initiated in January 2011, construction could commence in November/December Page 5-1

38 DRAFT DURATION Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 CONENU BOARD APPROVAL OFFICE OF IG CONCURRENCE NTP ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING DEIGN DOCUMENT 30% BID DOCUMENT 60% 90% 100% MBTA REVIEW POTENTIAL CM AR ELECTION ETABLIH GMP CONTRUCTION NTP / MOBILIZATION CONTRUCTION UBTANTIAL COMPLETION ALEM MBTA PARKING GARAGE - COPE ADJUTMENT - PROJECT CHEDULE - OCTOBER 20, 2010

39 Final cope Report October 20, Project Costs Construction cost estimates have been developed for the preliminary order of magnitude costs included in this report. Refer to ection 2.0 for conceptual scheme and Appendix 8.0 for conceptual cost estimate including scope adjustments. The construction cost estimate with scope adjustments is $24.9 million, of which approximately $18.0 million is associated with the garage itself. The project budget including soft costs (owner costs, design fees, etc.) is being developed in conjunction with the MBTA. The target project budget is $30.0 million. Additional scope items beyond the current project budget could include: Provisions for a +/-2,000sf Registry Express adjacent to the waiting area, proximate to site access from Washington treet. Provision of (2) toilet rooms. Extended platform canopies. Additional brick exterior. Future pedestrian and vehicular bridge connections from Washington treet. Page 6-1

40 Final cope Report October 20, Next teps There is consideration being given to designing the structure to allow an additional vehicle access point at a supported level for a future direct link to the intersection at Bridge and Washington treets. In addition to development & documentation of the design, next steps include: Environmental Permitting Geotechnical Evaluation Traffic Analysis Construction Phasing / Implementation Construction Procurement Methodology Coordination of Bridge treet improvements for future development of rail line row Page 7-1

41 Final cope Report October 20, Appendices cope Adjustment ummary, dated eptember 10, 2010 revised Parking Garage alem, MA: Conceptual Design Estimate Dated August 19, 2010 alem MBTA Parking Garage alem, MA: Conceptual Design Estimate Dated August 19, 2010 Annual Maintenance Cost New Facility (Design Development Level ervice Life Cost tudy), dated eptember 3, 2010 Page 8-1

42 eptember 10, 2010 revised MBTA ALEM COMMUTER RAIL TATION GARAGE AND TATION IMPROVEMENT COPE ADJUTMENT UMMARY Item In cope Not in cope Full-high platform $4,655,800 Registry Express $576,000 Toilet Rooms $99,500 Add Masonry at East Elevation $362,900 Add Masonry at outh Elevation $518,400 Add Masonry at North Elevation $518,400 Add Canopy to North of Garage $490,500 Future Pedestrian Bridge to Washington treet $1,500,000 Future Vehicular Bridge to Washington treet $3,850,000 Note: all items include General Conditions and Requirements, Permits, Insurance, Fee and Escalation

43 Parking Garage alem, MA INTRODUCTION alem MBTA Parking Garage alem, MA August 19, 2010 Conceptual Design Estimate Project Description: Construction of new 272,000 gross square foot Parking Garage, For the purpose of this estimate, it has been assumed that all the parking is on and above grade It has been assumed that there will be 1 level on grade and 4 above grade levels using a precast double T system with brick and precast spandrel panels Project Particulars: Conceptual design drawings issued by AECOM dated 7/16/2010. Detailed quantity takeoff from these documents where possible. Daedalus Projects, Inc. experience with similar projects of this nature. Project Assumptions: - The project will be a public bid, using the services of agc. Our costs assume that there will be at least four subcontractors submitting unrestricted bids in each sub-trade, - Unit rates are based on current dollars (July 2010) - ubcontractor's markups have been included in each unit rate. Markups cover the cost of field overhead, home office overhead and subcontractor's profit. - Design and Pricing Contingency markup is an allowance for unforeseen design issues, design detail development and specification clarifications. - General Conditions and Requirements value covers site office overhead. - Overhead and profit markup is calculated on a percentage basis of direct construction costs. Project Exclusions: Architect: Cost Estimator: AECOM Daedalus Projects, Inc. 66 Long Wharf 112 outh treet Boston MA Boston, MA (617) (617) Design fees and other soft costs. - Interest expense. - Owner's project administration. - Construction contingency. - Pre-construction service fee - Construction of temporary facilities including provision of temporary rooms - Relocation expenses. - Printing and advertising. Introduction Page 1 of 19 Estimate Printed 8/19/2010

44 alem MBTA Parking Garage alem, MA MAIN UMMARY Parking Garage alem, MA INTRODUCTION - pecialties, loose furnishings, fixtures and equipment beyond what is noted. - Work beyond the boundary of the site, unless otherwise stated. - Vehicular Connection from Washington street - pecial pedestrian access from Washington street - Covered bus bays - 6th Level of Parking structure - Work to state or city highways and streets GF TOTAL COT/F ite Development $1,270,735 Enclosed Office/Desk pace (1 tory, 2000 GF) NA Parking Garage 272,000 GF $12,323,610 $45.31 ub-total $13,594,345 $49.98 Design Contingency 10.0% $1,359,435 $5.00 $14,953,780 $54.98 Markups General Conditions and Requirements 1 L $1,196,302 $4.40 Permit 1.2% $179,445 $0.66 Insurance 1% $149,538 $0.55 Fee 3.00% $448,613 $1.65 Phasing 5% $747,689 $2.75 Escalation 2.00% $299,076 $1.10 ETIMATED CONTRACT VALUE $17,974,443 $66.08 Cost per space $22, paces Parking access and revenue control; ALLOWANCE $400,000 (Not included in Estimated Contract Value) Introduction Page 2 of 19 Estimate Printed 8/19/2010 alem MBTA Parking garage 19August2010 Page 3 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010

45 Parking Garage itework ITE DEVELOPMENT UMMARY ELEMENT ite Electrical $202, ELECTRICAL $202, Clearing and Grub ite $84, Dewatering $40, Excavation upport and Protection $37, Earth Moving $125, Erosion and edimentation Controls $59, EARTHWORK $347, Asphalt Paving $122, Concrete Paving $41, Curbing $90, ite Improvement $53, Fences and Gates $65, Turf and Grasses $3, Plants $73, EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENT $450, Water Utility Distribution Piping $70, anitary Utility ewerage ystem $50, torm Utility Drainage ystem $150, UTILITIE $270,000 ubtotal $1,270, EXITING CONDITION ELECTRICAL ite Electrical ITE DEVELOPMENT Parking Garage alem, MA ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT 55 ite electrical allowance including lighting 1 L $150, $150, ite lighting (assume 15 pole lights) 15 EA $3, $52, Canopy lighting 9,557 F $5.00 MBTA Canopy lighting at High-level platform 10,635 F $5.00 MBTA ite Electrical total $202, EARTHWORK Clearing and Grub ite 64 ite clearance allowance 169,184 F $0.50 $84, Clearing and Grub ite total $84, Dewatering 68 Dewatering allowance 1 L $40, $40, Dewatering total $40, Excavation upport and Protection 72 8' Construction fence, install & maintain 2,296 LF $10.00 $22, Double construction Gate allowance 2 EA $1, $3, Construct. entrance-gravel bed, construct and maintain 2 EA $5, $11, Excavation upport and Protection total $37, Earth Moving 78 ite cut & fill allowance 892 CY $8.00 $7, Cut & fill of roadway, parking lot allowance 3,546 CY $9.00 $31, Cut & fill of concrete sidewalk allowance 241 CY $9.00 $2, New gas service for building - excavate trench only 200 LF $50.00 $10, Gravel base to surfacing 2,986 CY $25.00 $74, Earth Moving total $125, Erosion and edimentation Controls 86 Hay bales and silt fence including maintenance allowance 2,169 LF $4.50 $9, torm water management plan 1 L $50, $50, Erosion and edimentation Controls total $59, itework Details Garage Only Page 4 of 19 Print Date: 8/19/2010 itework Details Garage Only Page 5 of 19 Print Date: 8/19/2010

46 Parking Garage Parking Garage ITE DEVELOPMENT alem, MA ITE DEVELOPMENT alem, MA ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENT Asphalt Paving 94 Bit concrete pavement -parking lot 12,527 F $2.30 $28, Bit roadway pavement 35,342 F $2.45 $86, Parking stall painting, type. 20 EA $35.00 $ Painted cross walk allowance 1,830 F $1.00 $1, Misc. markings 1 L $5, $5, Asphalt Paving total $122, Concrete Paving 102 Concrete sidewalk 6,518 F $5.00 $32, New ramp 908 F $7.00 $6, Curb cut allowance 8 EA $ $2, Concrete Paving total $41, Curbing 108 Granite Curbing allowance 2,672 LF $34.00 $90, Curbing total $90, ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT ite Improvement 133 Canopy 9,557 F $ MBTA 134 Concrete full height platform 10,498 F 135 Excavation to: 136 New strip foundation excavation 2,083 CY $8.00 MBTA 137 Excavation of slab on grade 583 CY $9.00 MBTA 138 Gravel base to slab on grade 355 CY $25.00 MBTA 139 Concrete to: 140 trip footings 131 CY $ MBTA 141 Foundation wall 264 CY $ MBTA 142 lab on grade 5" thick allowance 170 CY $ MBTA 143 Reinforcing to: 144 trip footings 10,500 LB $1.05 MBTA 145 Foundation wall 30,338 LB $1.05 MBTA 146 lab; w.w.f 15% allowance for laps 12,073 F $0.55 MBTA 147 Tactile warning strip 457 LF $35.00 MBTA 148 Formwork to: 149 trip footings 2,250 F $7.00 MBTA 150 Foundation wall 20,250 F $8.00 MBTA 151 Proposed high-level platform 10,635 F 152 Canopy 22,719 F $ MBTA 153 Excavation to: 154 New strip foundation excavation 2,930 CY $8.00 MBTA 155 Excavation of slab on grade 591 CY $9.00 MBTA 156 Gravel base to slab on grade 360 CY $25.00 MBTA 157 Concrete to: 158 trip footings 246 CY $ MBTA 159 Foundation wall 453 CY $ MBTA 160 lab on grade 5" thick allowance 172 CY $ MBTA 161 Reinforcing to: 162 trip footings 19,687 LB $1.05 MBTA 163 Foundation wall 52,143 LB $1.05 MBTA 164 lab; w.w.f 15% allowance for laps 12,230 F $0.55 MBTA itework Details Garage Only Page 6 of 19 Print Date: 8/19/2010 itework Details Garage Only Page 7 of 19 Print Date: 8/19/2010

47 Parking Garage Parking Garage ITE DEVELOPMENT alem, MA ITE DEVELOPMENT alem, MA 172 ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT 173 Tactile warning strip 782 LF $35.00 MBTA 174 Formwork to: 175 trip footings 3,164 F $7.00 MBTA 176 Foundation wall 34,804 F $8.00 MBTA 177 Railing at High-level platform 292 LF $ MBTA 178 heltd 7 F $10, MBTA 179 Bumpers 1 L $25, MBTA 180 ignage 1 L $5, MBTA 181 Concrete ramp: 182 Excavation of slab on grade 122 CY $9.00 MBTA 183 Gravel base to slab on grade 84 CY $25.00 MBTA 184 lab on grade 5" thick allowance 40 CY $ MBTA 185 Railing at concrete ramp 262 LF $85.00 MBTA 186 Dumpster with enclosure allowance 1 EA $1, MBTA 187 Dumpster pad allowance 1 L $1, MBTA 188 Equipment pad allowance 1 L $ $ Trash / Recycle Receptacles allowance 4 EA $ $2, foot high tapered anodized aluminum flagpole with 1 EA $7, MBTA 191 internal halyard system and 8 foot by 12 foot flag. 192 Bike rack and enclosure 1 AL $20, MBTA 193 Benches allowance 1 AL $14, MBTA 194 Bollards allowance 12 EA $ $9, Traffic signage allowance 1 L $5, $5, Building signs allowance 1 AL $35, $35, ite Improvement total $53, Fences and Gates ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT 215 ecurity gate 1 EA $45, $45, Fence allowance 1 L $20, $20, Fences and Gates total $65, Turf and Grasses 220 Lawn allowance 8,529 F $0.35 $2, Mulch allowance 25 CY $40.00 $1, Turf and Grasses total $3, Plants 225 Deciduous Trees 8 EA $ $5, Groundcover allowance 8,529 F $5.00 $42, Planting other than above allowance 1 L $25, $25, Plants total $73, UTILITIE Water Utility Distribution Piping 234 Water utility distribution piping allowance 1 L $70, $70, Water Utility Distribution Piping total $70, anitary Utility ewerage ystem 238 anitary utility sewerage system allowance 1 L $50, $50, anitary Utility ewerage ystem total $50, torm Utility Drainage ystem 242 torm utility drainage system allowance 1 L $150, $150, torm Utility Drainage ystem total $150, itework Details Garage Only Page 8 of 19 Print Date: 8/19/2010 itework Details Garage Only Page 9 of 19 Print Date: 8/19/2010

48 BUILDING UMMARY Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT COT COT/F BUILDING UMMARY Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT COT COT/F Earthwork $310,315 $ ITEWORK TOTAL $310,315 $ Cast-in-Place Concrete $1,794,964 $ Precast tructural Concrete $6,509,775 $ CONCRETE TOTAL $8,304,739 $ Unit Masonry Assemblies $746,454 $ MAONRY TOTAL $746,454 $ tructural teel $35,750 $ Metal Roof Decking $10,010 $ Metal Fabrications $202,690 $ METAL TOTAL $248,450 $ Traction Elevator $240,000 $ CONVEYING YTEM TOTAL $240,000 $ Fire Protection $305,918 $ Plumbing $321,600 $ HVAC $20,000 $0.07 MECHANICAL TOTAL $647,518 $ Electrical $1,632,000 $ ELECTRICAL TOTAL $1,632,000 $6.00 ubtotal Carried to Main ummary $12,323,610 $ elf-adhering heet Waterproofing $7,617 $ Polymer Modified-Cement Waterproofing $3,000 $ Composite Wall Panels $0 $ Polyvinyl-Chloride (PVC) Roofing $0 $ THERMAL & MOITURE PROTECTION TOTAL $10,617 $ Hollow metal doors and frames $7,000 $ Alum.-Framed Entrances & torefronts $0 $ Door Hardware $4,200 $ DOOR & WINDOW TOTAL $11,200 $ Tiling $0 $ Painting $75,316 $ FINIHE TOTAL $75,316 $ ignage $95,200 $ Toilet and Bath Accessories $0 $ Fire Extinguishers and Cabinets $1,800 $ PECIALTIE TOTAL $97,000 $ Parking Control Equipment NIC 11-EQUIPMENT TOTAL $0 $0.00 alem MBTA Parking garage 19August2010 Page 10 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010 alem MBTA Parking garage 19August2010 Page 11 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010

49 Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT 8 02-BUILDING ITEWORK Earthwork 11 Rough grade for slab on grade 58,497 F $0.70 $40, New foundation excavation 3,364 CY $11.00 $37, Backfill, using imported clean fill 1,223 CY $24.00 $29, Disposal off site 3,364 CY $18.00 $60, Elevator pit excavation 1 EA $3, $3, Perimeter foundation drainage allowance 1,220 LF $15.00 $18, Crushed stone base to slab 1,512 CY $30.00 $45, De-watering 1 L $25, $25, Earthwork support 1 L $50, $50, Earthwork total $310, Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT CONCRETE Cast-in-Place Concrete 50 Concrete to: 51 Grade beams 752 CY $ $139, Pile caps 210 CY $ $38, tructured lab on grade 6" thick allowance 1,077 CY $ $199, Ramp, assume 6" thickness allowance 111 CY $ $20, Reinforcing to: 56 Grade beams 139,120 LB $1.05 $146, Pile caps 31,500 LB $1.05 $33, tructured lab on grade 6" thick allowance 161,550 LB $1.05 $169, Ramp, assume 6" thickness allowance 16,667 LB $1.05 $17, Formwork: 61 Grade beams 10,156 F $10.00 $101, Pile caps 3,780 F $10.00 $37, tructured lab on grade 6" thick allowance 5,399 F $10.00 $53, Concrete beam at ramp 576 F $13.00 $7, Miscellaneous: 66 Piles 55,392 F $12.00 $664, ealed concrete floor, slab on grade allowance 55,392 F $0.50 $27, Vapor barrier 55,392 F $1.00 $55, lab isolation joints 3,545 LF $5.00 $17, Expansion joint at ramp 128 LF $ $12, Elevator pit mat walls and slab 1 L $7, $7, Eliminate concrete for enclosed area including toilet rms 2,048 F ($5.00) ($10,240) 73 Keyway and waterstops 1 L $5, $5, Casting in accessories 1 L $20, $20, Winter working premium 1 L $30, $30, Cast-in-Place Concrete total $1,794, Precast tructural Concrete 79 Precast structural included doublet tee beams & column 216,554 F $27.00 $5,846, ($/F Number provided by Walker) 81 Traffic topping 4,000 F $3.50 $14, Penetrating silane sealer 216,554 F $0.50 $108, Architectural precast concrete panel 12,870 F $42.00 $540, Precast tructural Concrete total $6,509, Not MBTA Parking Garage Details Page 12 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010 Not MBTA Parking Garage Details Page 13 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010

50 MAONRY Unit Masonry Assemblies Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT 90 caffolding 11,018 F $2.00 $22, " CMU lower level 2,184 F $20.00 $43, " CMU lower level 3,633 F $18.00 $65, Eliminate walls for restrooms 360 F ($18.00) ($6,480) 94 12" CMU at Elevator shaft wall 2,393 F $20.00 $47, " CMU at stair 2,448 F $20.00 $48, Brick 15,000 F $35.00 $525, Unit Masonry Assemblies total $746, METAL tructural teel 103 tructural steel for roof - at 10 lbs / sq. ft 14.3 TON $2, $35, tructural teel total $35, Metal Roof Decking 107 Metal deck for roof 2,860 F $3.50 $10, Metal Roof Decking total $10, Metal Fabrications 111 Elevator pit ladder and sill angles 1 ET $2, $2, Metal guardrail and support at ramp 468 LF $80.00 $37, Pipe bollards allowance 16 EA $ $6, Impact protection barriers allowance 500 LF $70.00 $35, Metal staircases with wall mounted handrails and balustrades 12 FLT $9, $111, Misc metals not identified above 2 TN $5, $10, Metal Fabrications total $202, Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT THERMAL AND MOITURE PROTECTION elf-adhering heet Waterproofing 130 Dampproof foundations 5,078 F $1.50 $7, elf-adhering heet Waterproofing total $7, Polymer Modified-Cement Waterproofing 134 Crystalline waterproofing to elevator pits 1 EA $3, $3, Polymer Modified-Cement Waterproofing total $3, Composite Wall Panels 138 Included in storefront price F $ Composite Wall Panels total Polyvinyl-Chloride (PVC) Roofing 142 PVC Roof, densdeck, insulation 2,860 F $10.75 MBTA Polyvinyl-Chloride (PVC) Roofing total $ DOOR AND WINDOW Hollow metal doors and frames 149 ingle metal door & frames 5 EA $1, $5, Bathroom doors (MBTA) -2 EA $1, ($2,000) 151 Double metal door & frames 2 PR $2, $4, Hollow metal doors and frames total $7, Alum.-Framed Entrances & torefronts 155 Aluminum panel / storefront system 2,646 F $70.00 MBTA 156 Entrance or vestibule doors, glazed single 4 PR $7, MBTA 157 Premium for electric operation 2 EA $2, MBTA Alum.-Framed Entrances & torefronts total $ Door Hardware 161 Hardware sets, average cost 9 ET $ $5, Bathroom doors (MBTA) -2 EA $ ($1,200) Door Hardware total $4, Not MBTA Parking Garage Details Page 14 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010 Not MBTA Parking Garage Details Page 15 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010

51 FINIHE Tiling Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT 170 Tile floors 200 F $15.00 MBTA 171 Ceramic wall tile 954 F $15.00 MBTA 172 Ceramic tile base 106 LF $13.00 MBTA 173 Granite thresholds 2 EA $65.00 MBTA Tiling total $ Painting 177 Paint CMU walls 14,004 F $1.50 $21, Paint door and frame 9 LEAF $ $ Parking stall painting, type. 774 EA $35.00 $27, Parking stall -accessible 17 EA $75.00 $1, Msic pavement painting 1 L $15, $15, Painting metal surfaces ( stairs, handrails etc) 1 L $10, $10, Painting total $75, PECIALTIE ignage 189 ignage required by code 272,000 F $0.35 $95, ignage total $95, Toilet and Bath Accessories 193 Toilet accessories allowance 1 L $1, MBTA Toilet and Bath Accessories total $ Fire Extinguishers and Cabinets 197 Fire extinguishers, 4 EA $ $1, Fire Extinguishers and Cabinets total $1, EQUIPMENT Parking Control Equipment Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT 209 Parking access and revenue control NIC Parking Control Equipment total NIC CONVEYING YTEM Traction Elevator 215 Hydraulic elevator, 4 stop, 3500 Lb. 2 EA $120,000 $240, Traction Elevator total $240, Not MBTA Parking Garage Details Page 16 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010 Not MBTA Parking Garage Details Page 17 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010

52 MECHANICAL Fire Protection Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT 248 prinkler Coverage 55,392 F $4.00 $221, Dry Alarm Valve w/compressor - EA N/A $0 250 Fire Dept. Connections 2 EA $2, $5, FDV w/ 6" standpipe (two standpipes) 10 EA $1, $15, Main piping: 253-6" 700 LF $85.00 $59, Coring, leeves & sleeves 1 L $1, $1, Lift 1 L $1, $1, Permits & Fees 1 L $ $ hop drawings/hydraulic calculations 1 L $1, $1, Fire Protection total $305, Plumbing 261 Water Closet 2 EA $3, MBTA 262 Lavatory 2 EA $3, MBTA 263 Oily Water eparator 1 EA $10, $10, and eapartor 1 EA $15, $15, Trench Drains 1 L $12, $12, Floor Drains ( garage ) 60 EA $3, $180, Roof Drains 20 EA $4, $96, Permits & Fees 1 EA $2, $2, Test and sterilize 1 EA $2, $2, hop drawings 1 EA $4, $4, Plumbing total $321, HVAC 274 Exhaust for basement 1 L $20, $20, HVAC total $20, Parking Garage alem, MA 272,000 GF ELEMENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE COT ELECTRICAL Electrical 287 Allow for "Plug-In" Electric cars 4 LOC $2, MBTA 288 Electrical allowance 272,000 F $6.00 $1,632, Electrical total $1,632, Not MBTA Parking Garage Details Page 18 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010 Not MBTA Parking Garage Details Page 19 of 19 Printed 8/19/2010

53 alem MBTA Parking Garage alem, MA INTRODUCTION alem MBTA Parking Garage alem, MA August 19, 2010 Conceptual Design Estimate Project Description: Construction of new 272,000 gross square foot Parking Garage, For the purpose of this estimate, it has been assumed that all the parking is on and above grade It has been assumed that there will be 1 level on grade and 4 above grade levels using a precast double T system with brick and precast spandrel panels Project Particulars: Conceptual design drawings issued by AECOM dated 7/16/2010. Detailed quantity takeoff from these documents where possible. Daedalus Projects, Inc. experience with similar projects of this nature. Project Assumptions: - The project will be a public bid, using the services of agc. Our costs assume that there will be at least four subcontractors submitting unrestricted bids in each sub-trade, - Unit rates are based on current dollars (July 2010) - ubcontractor's markups have been included in each unit rate. Markups cover the cost of field overhead, home office overhead and subcontractor's profit. - Design and Pricing Contingency markup is an allowance for unforeseen design issues, design detail development and specification clarifications. - General Conditions and Requirements value covers site office overhead. - Overhead and profit markup is calculated on a percentage basis of direct construction costs. Project Exclusions: Architect: Cost Estimator: AECOM Daedalus Projects, Inc. 66 Long Wharf 112 outh treet Boston MA Boston, MA (617) (617) Design fees and other soft costs. - Interest expense. - Owner's project administration. - Construction contingency. - Pre-construction service fee - Construction of temporary facilities including provision of temporary rooms - Relocation expenses. - Printing and advertising. Introduction Page 1 of 19 Estimate Printed 8/19/2010